This week, in the heart of London, history is repeating itself.
Whilst the Reverend Canon Dr. Giles Fraser is not Jesus Christ and his resignation from the staff of St Paul's Cathedral does not have quite the dramatic effect of Jesus' clearing of the temple the issues surrounding St Paul's Cathedral and its relationship to the city are remarkably similar to the biblical story.
In the gospels Jesus is ministering the lame, sick, outcasts when he discovers the Jerusalem temple, which was meant to be “a house of prayer” was being used as a centre of commerce. Fast forward the two thousand and some years to 2011. In the heart of London's financial district camp around the clock in the grounds of St Paul's protesting the as part of the now global #occupy movement. Citing first Health and Safety concerns the problem soon turned to money with Cathedral authorities claiming the peaceful protest was costing the Cathedral £20,000 a day (on today's exchange rate that equates to $32,000). A closer look at the website shows that there is more at stake for St Paul’s; alongside its heavily promoted shop, cáfe and restaurant we find St Pauls' advertisement for “corporate partnerships”. These corporate partners are offered a scheme “tailored to meet the needs of each company” - it is I guess St Paul's way of being 'all things to all men'.
The gospel of Mark's version of the story has Jesus' followers joining him as he “went out of the city” (Mk 11:19); strangely the Church of St Pauls appears to have chosen not to follow Jesus out of the City but to stay with its “corporate partners”.
It is certainly true that Jesus wants to save the 1 percent who separate themselves from the 99 percent and St Paul's are doing nothing wrong in preaching to but I am not so sure that Jesus intended them to turn their backs on the 99 percent. Perhaps St Pauls could take some advice from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a theologian whose statue stands at the entrance of that other great London church Wesminster Abbey. “The Church” says Bonhoeffer in his Letters and Papers from Prison “is her true self only when she exists for humanity. As a fresh start, she should give away all her endowments to the poor and needy. The clergy should live solely on the freewill offerings of their congregations, or possibly engage in some secular calling.”
Article comments
1 - Glenn Contrarian
Well said! While it is likely that you and I would strongly disagree on the central tenets of what we each hold to be truths in religion (I am a member of the Iglesia ni Cristo), you and I can certainly agree that in today's terms, Jesus was a liberal. As you pointed out, man cannot serve both God and mammon, and Jesus Himself said how difficult it was for a rich man to be saved.
Again, well said! Unfortunately, most of the BC denizens are either atheist or agnostic and pay little attention to that single most important possible subject that can ever be discussed: the eternal salvation of our very souls.
I look forward to more articles by you!
2 - Christopher Rose
The church in Britain is part of the establishment so it is no surprise that it is seeking the removal of the occupiers rather than supporting them, which is what it ought to do.
3 - Dr Dreadful
This is by no means the first awkward moral/political position the Church of England has found itself in, and it won't be the last.
For instance, there was the time some years back when the Church decided it had to Take a Stand Against Gambling. Rather ironic considering that the C of E is one of the largest players on the UK stock market and lost hundreds of millions in the crashes of 2003 and 2008.